On Futurology

If history studies our past and social sciences study our present, what is the study of our future? Future(s) Studies (colloquially called "future(s)" by many of the field's practitioners) is an interdisciplinary field that seeks to hypothesize the possible, probable, preferable, or alternative future(s).

One of the fundamental assumptions in future(s) studies is that the future is plural rather than singular, that is, that it consists of alternative future(s) of varying degrees of likelihood but that it is impossible in principle to say with certainty which one will occur.

The only way the web can be weaponized are, spyware, malware, viruses, and trojans. A pseudo form of weaponization of the web is clickbait and fake news. The problem is the real people spreading it. You can't fix dumb people it is literally unfixable.

He warns about concentration of power among a few companies, but his solution is to grant more power to the single entity that has the most concentrated power of all--the government.

We should be alarmed whenever someone proposes (and newspapers like the Guardian implicitly support the idea) that the government should take a more active role in "control[ling] which ideas and opinions are seen and shared."

I dont believe this article touches on the real dangers of having so few companies controlling online censorship. Russia is referenced but the most found in advertising was 1 million for all political sides, just to cause disruption. But I know of several sales companies that spend 10 times that a year in online advertising. Bernie Sanders campaign had more than 120 million. The danger isnt small actors posting fake news, its these corporations deciding what language is allowed online. Look at the UK where you have police responding to Twitter posts flagged by Twitter itself. Very close to a Ministry of Truth.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee has controversially decided to back the introduction of digital rights management – aka anti-piracy and anti-copying mechanisms – as a Web standard.

Berners-Lee makes a series of arguments for why EME should be approved: including that having a standard allows for greater interoperability; and that it enables the data provided by content use to be limited, improving online privacy.

But the decision has caused uproar, with some in the internet community claiming the W3C is selling out to commercial interests, and others warning that the era of having to use a particular browser to view videos may return.

In an aggressive, mocking response to Berners-Lee's post, the anti-DRM campaign group Defective by Design called the inventor of the World Wide Web "defeatist" and noted that the "star of the 2012 Olympics opening ceremony, and one of the best-known tech celebrities outside of Silicon Valley, believes he is powerless."

Many of the comments on Berners-Lee's post are also strongly critical of his position. Most of the arguments put forward are ideological rather than pragmatic, and do not address his counter-points about DRM being a simple reality with EME offering a standard that ultimately provides better protection for the Web as a whole.
Non-standard

There is, however, one serious argument over why EME may not be a good idea, and that is whether it will result in companies, from Netflix to Google, effectively requiring you to use a particular browser to view video content.

IMO an open source web DRM standard would be a good thing.
AFAIK the current situation for sold ebooks: Either use Amazon Kindle or Adobe Digital Editions.
I do not know about DRM for sold videos but I guess an open source web DRM standard would be beneficial in that market as well.